In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

In message
,
at 07:16:43 on Tue, 29 Dec 2009, MIG
remarked:

any county is an administrative concept and its borders are
administrative and can't be anything else.

No, they can be geographic, ignoring recent administrative changes.

And there can be other meaningful definitions.

For a moment I thought you were falling into the nonsensical "it's
really in Cheshire but administratively in Greater Manchester" sort of
comment.

Nottingham City is still in(side) Nottinghamshire, despite being a
unitary authority.

Which is why there is another level of administrative boundaries,
lieutenancies, in which unitary are incorporated into wider counties. The
main exception is Stockton which is divided along the Tees between
Yorkshire and Durham lieutenancies.

I can accept the "feels like" and the boundaries used by different
utilities and transport systems, but I can't be doing with the idea
that current administrative boundaries are administrative, while
previous administrative boundaries are real.

It's only fairly recently that the administrative boundaries have
been tinkered with so that they don't line up with centuries-old
geographic boundaries.

Oh no it isn't! Royston used to straddle the border of Cambridgeshire and
Hertfordshire. The border was redrawn round it in the nineteenth century.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message , at 15:49:41
on Tue, 29 Dec 2009, remarked:
It's only fairly recently that the administrative boundaries have
been tinkered with so that they don't line up with centuries-old
geographic boundaries.

Oh no it isn't! Royston used to straddle the border of Cambridgeshire and
Hertfordshire. The border was redrawn round it in the nineteenth century.

That counts as "fairly recent" (in my centuries-old timeline)!

(Last time we discussed this, did we come up with a date for this
boundary change?)
--
Roland Perry

On Dec 29, 9:49*pm, wrote:
any county is an administrative concept and its borders are
administrative and can't be anything else.

No, they can be geographic, ignoring recent administrative changes.

And there can be other meaningful definitions.

For a moment I thought you were falling into the nonsensical "it's
really in Cheshire but administratively in Greater Manchester" sort of
comment.

Nottingham City is still in(side) Nottinghamshire, despite being a
unitary authority.

Which is why there is another level of administrative boundaries,
lieutenancies, in which unitary are incorporated into wider counties. The
main exception is Stockton which is divided along the Tees between
Yorkshire and Durham lieutenancies.

I can accept the "feels like" and the boundaries used by different
utilities and transport systems, but I can't be doing with the idea
that current administrative boundaries are administrative, while
previous administrative boundaries are real.

It's only fairly recently that the administrative boundaries have
been tinkered with so that they don't line up with centuries-old
geographic boundaries.

Oh no it isn't! Royston used to straddle the border of Cambridgeshire and
Hertfordshire. The border was redrawn round it in the nineteenth century.

Indeed. Roland's statement is complete nonsense unless you count 1888
as "fairly recent", which it isn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Government_Act_1888

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

In message
, at
01:34:41 on Wed, 30 Dec 2009, John B remarked:
It's only fairly recently that the administrative boundaries have
been tinkered with so that they don't line up with centuries-old
geographic boundaries.

Oh no it isn't! Royston used to straddle the border of Cambridgeshire and
Hertfordshire. The border was redrawn round it in the nineteenth century.

Indeed. Roland's statement is complete nonsense unless you count 1888
as "fairly recent", which it isn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Government_Act_1888

Of course it's "fairly recent". Most of the historic county boundaries
have been mapped, and entered popular consciousness, since at least the
1600's
--
Roland Perry

On Dec 30, 11:51*am, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
01:34:41 on Wed, 30 Dec 2009, John B remarked:

It's only fairly recently that the administrative boundaries have
been tinkered with so that they don't line up with centuries-old
geographic boundaries.

Oh no it isn't! Royston used to straddle the border of Cambridgeshire and
Hertfordshire. The border was redrawn round it in the nineteenth century.

Indeed. Roland's statement is complete nonsense unless you count 1888
as "fairly recent", which it isn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Government_Act_1888

Of course it's "fairly recent". Most of the historic county boundaries
have been mapped, and entered popular consciousness, since at least the
1600's

You reckon there are Sussex folk in Tunbridge Wells who're still
disgruntled about being forcibly assimilated into Kent? People in
Oxford who insist they're native Berkshire-ites? Isle of Wight natives
who insist they live in Hampshire...?

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

John B wrote:

Of course it's "fairly recent". Most of the historic county boundaries
have been mapped, and entered popular consciousness, since at least the
1600's

You reckon there are Sussex folk in Tunbridge Wells who're still
disgruntled about being forcibly assimilated into Kent? People in
Oxford who insist they're native Berkshire-ites? Isle of Wight natives
who insist they live in Hampshire...?

And where is Essex in Forest Gate?!

In message
, at
04:01:49 on Wed, 30 Dec 2009, John B remarked:
You reckon there are Sussex folk in Tunbridge Wells who're still
disgruntled about being forcibly assimilated into Kent? People in
Oxford who insist they're native Berkshire-ites? Isle of Wight natives
who insist they live in Hampshire...?

I wouldn't be at all surprised to find there were people who regard
themselves as living in Oxfordshire, despite being on the northern edge
of Reading and having been assimilated into administrative Berkshire
(and now unitary Reading).
--
Roland Perry

In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

In message , at
15:49:41 on Tue, 29 Dec 2009, remarked:
It's only fairly recently that the administrative boundaries have
been tinkered with so that they don't line up with centuries-old
geographic boundaries.

Oh no it isn't! Royston used to straddle the border of Cambridgeshire
and Hertfordshire. The border was redrawn round it in the nineteenth
century.

That counts as "fairly recent" (in my centuries-old timeline)!

(Last time we discussed this, did we come up with a date for this
boundary change?)

The establishment of county councils in 1889 probably. A lot of county
boundary anomalies were sorted out then.

As Wikipaedia puts it: "The boundaries of the counties were to be those
used for parliamentary purposes, adjusted to include urban sanitary
districts on county borders within a single county." The same article
mentions Newmarket as an urban sanitary district which lay in more than
one county and which was given to Suffolk (because it contained largest
part of the district's population at the 1881 census).

It doesn't mention Royston however. I suspect it hadn't developed enough
to be an urban sanitary district before then.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message , at 07:06:15
on Wed, 30 Dec 2009, remarked:
Royston used to straddle the border of Cambridgeshire
and Hertfordshire. The border was redrawn round it in the nineteenth
century.

That counts as "fairly recent" (in my centuries-old timeline)!

(Last time we discussed this, did we come up with a date for this
boundary change?)

The establishment of county councils in 1889 probably. A lot of county
boundary anomalies were sorted out then.

As Wikipaedia puts it: "The boundaries of the counties were to be those
used for parliamentary purposes, adjusted to include urban sanitary
districts on county borders within a single county." The same article
mentions Newmarket as an urban sanitary district which lay in more than
one county and which was given to Suffolk (because it contained largest
part of the district's population at the 1881 census).

It doesn't mention Royston however. I suspect it hadn't developed enough
to be an urban sanitary district before then.

It seems that the former Royston USD may have been too big to fully
incorporate in either one county or the other, and half of it ended up
as the Melbourn District, within Cambridgshire. The other half may have
been lumped into Ashwell for a few years, before gaining 'independence'.
--
Roland Perry

Reverting to the original debate between Roland and MIG about
Essex/Greater London, I agree it depends on your interpretation of
boundary and side with Roland.
Unlike MIG I do not take any notice of artificial local govt. boundaries -
a place is defined by its postal area.Until fairly recently I lived in
Harold Wood (the last station within the GLA area) Romford Essex (Postal
Code RM12, not London E or heaven forbid Havering) which makes it Essex to
me.Indeed most residents would certainly not consider they lived in
London.

John